Ohhhh Yes it is......
Not necessarily, it depends on the extent of the relationship between the two persons. Simply being on the same board or belonging to the same organization does not create a legal conflict of interest.
Although it might be beneficial for grounds to appeal if the case does not turn out in the questioner's favor.
Judges are human and have opinions like anyone else. It is the judges job to consider all of the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on the facts of the case. If judges were required to recuse themselves simply because they had opinions regarding cases they were preciding, it would be nearly impossible to have case heard.
The judge also knows both attorneys. Simply knowing someone is not the issue. It's whether they have a personal or professional relationship. Is there something about the decision that has the appearance of conflict?
When someone who is entitled to vote does not vote, that person is said to abstain from voting. A conflict of interest may be the reason for the abstention, but I'm not aware of a special word that applies to the act of abstaining for that particular reason.
No.
Someone who does not pick a side during a conflict is considered a neutral party. Often, neutral parties are most useful in mediating arguments.
No, a witness testifying that they personally saw the defendant strike the plaintiff is not considered hearsay. Hearsay involves relaying information heard from someone else outside of the courtroom. Since the witness is providing firsthand knowledge of the event, their testimony is typically admissible as direct evidence.
as long as there is no conflict of interest, that both parties are of a responsible age.
Someone with a lengthy criminal background may be considered non-credible. Non-credible means the finder of facts (generally the jury) would not believe the witness's testimony. This could be because of a criminal background, a history of deception, or because of his/her own interest in the outcome of the case. For example, if the witness has a relationship with the defendant, his alibi that he was with the defendant at the time that the crime was committed may not be credible.
Defendant
Yes, lawyers have the right to choose not to defend someone in a legal case if they have a valid reason, such as a conflict of interest or ethical concerns.
In court, someone who does not have private interest in a case is referred to as "neutral and detached". In court, both parties have the right to be heard by a neutral and detached judge or magistrate.
conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below-but it still exists. Note: This summary incorrectly implies that conflicts of interest only apply to professionals. A conflict of interest arises when anyone has two duties which conflict - for example an employee's duty to well and faithfully perform their work as purchasing manager, and that same employee's familial duty to their sibling who happens to be tendering for the sale of widgets to the employee's employer. In that case the employee has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that they are not a lawyer, doctor, politician etc
The defendant in the defamation suit is the person being accused of making false and harmful statements about someone else.